Doggett 9/22/05 1:53 PM Page 34
Root Cause Analysis:
A Framework for Tool Selection
A. MARK DOGGETT, HUMBOLDT STATE UNIVERSITY
This article provides a framework for analyzing the
performance of three popular root cause analysis
tools: the cause-and-effect diagram, the interrelation-
ship diagram, and the current reality tree. The litera-
ture confirmed that these tools have the capacity to
find root causes with varying degrees of accuracy and
quality. The literature, however, lacks a means for
selecting the appropriate root cause analysis tool
based upon objective performance criteria. Some of
the important performance characteristics of root
cause analysis tools include the ability to find root
causes, causal interdependencies, factor relationships,
and cause categories. Root cause analysis tools must
also promote focus, stimulate discussion, be readable
when complete, and have mechanisms for evaluating
the integrity of group findings. This analysis found
that each tool has advantages and disadvantages,
with varying levels of causal yield and selected causal
factor integrity. This framework provides decision
makers with the knowledge of root cause analysis per-
formance characteristics so they can better under-
stand the underlying assumptions of a recommended
solution.
Key words: collaboration, decision making, problem
solving, quality methods
34 QMJ VOL. 12, NO. 4/ 2005, ASQ
2005, ASQ
INTRODUCTION
Beneath every problem is a cause for that problem. In
order to solve a problem one must identify the cause of
the problem and take steps to eliminate the cause. If
the root cause of a problem is not identified, then one
is merely addressing the symptoms and the problem
will continue to exist. For this reason, identifying and
eliminating root causes of problems is of utmost
importance (Andersen and Fagerhaug 2000; Dew
1991; Sproull 2001).
Tools that help groups and individuals identify
potential root causes of problems are known as root
cause analysis tools. The cause-and-effect diagram
(CED), the interrelationship diagram (ID), and the
current reality tree (CRT) are three root cause analysis
tools frequently identified in the literature as viable
mechanisms for solving problems and making deci-
sions. The literature provides detailed descriptions, rec-
ommendations, and instructions for their construction
and use. Furthermore, the literature is quite detailed in
providing colorful and illustrative examples for each of
the tools so they can be quickly learned and applied. In
summary, the literature confirms that these three tools
are capable of finding potential root causes.
Conversely, although there is much information
about the individual attributes of these root cause
analysis tools, there is little information regarding the
performance of these tools relative to each other. Thus,
problem solvers and decision makers are likely to select
a tool based on convenience rather than on its actual
performance characteristics. Thus, the purpose of this
article is to explore and synthesize the current literature
for a head-to-head performance analysis of the CED,
ID, and CRT. The intent is to provide problem solvers
with a mechanism that can be used to select the appro-
priate root cause analysis tool for the specific problem.
Doggett 9/22/05 1:53 PM Page 35
Root Cause Analysis: A Framework for Tool Selection
The first section of this article presents an overview
and a background of the CED, ID, and CRT. For each
tool, there is a brief history, a presentation of various
construction techniques, and a summary of the tools
advantages and disadvantages. The second section
reviews published articles that compare these tools.
The third section analyzes the literature and provides a
conceptual framework with a head-to-head compari-
son for problem-solving practitioners and decision
makers. The final section concludes with implications
and recommendations for management.
AN OVERVIEW OF ROOT CAUSE
ANALYSIS TOOLS
Cause-and-Effect Diagram (CED)
The CED was designed to sort the potential causes of a
problem while organizing the causal relationships.
Professor Kaoru Ishikawa developed this tool in 1943 to
explain to a group of engineers at Kawasaki Steel Works
how various manufacturing factors could be sorted and
interrelated. The original intent of the CED was to solve
quality-related problems in products caused by statisti-
cal variation, but Ishikawa quickly realized it could be
used for solving other types of problems as well. The tool
later came into widespread use for quality control
throughout Japanese industry (Ishikawa 1982). As its
use spread to other countries, it became known as the
Ishikawa diagram, or more informally, the fishbone
because of its appearance once complete (Arcaro 1997;
Moran, Talbot, and Benson 1990; Sproull 2001).
Brassard and Ritter (1994, 23) assert that the CED
enables a team to focus on the content of the problem,
not on the history of the problem or differing personal
interests of team members. Andersen and Fagerhaug
(2000, 14) write that the CED is an easily applied tool
used to analyze possible causes to a problem, while
Wilson, Dell, and Anderson (1993, 195) call it a highly
visual technique which aids the process of defining the
elements of a problem or event and determining how it
probably occurred.
CEDs are drawn primarily to illustrate the possible
causes of a particular problem by sorting and relating
Figure 1 Steps in building a cause-and-effect
diagram.
Characteristic
or effect
A. Write the characteristic to be improved.
Cause Cause
Characteristic
or effect
Cause Cause
B. Add the main factor branches.
Cause Cause
Minor
Characteristic
or effect
causes
Cause Cause
2005, ASQ
C. Add the detailed causal factors as twigs.
them using a classification schema. The construction
and study of the diagram is intended to stimulate
knowledge acquisition and promote discussion, but it
can also educate others about a process or problem.
The CED encourages data collection by highlighting
areas of expertise or by showing where knowledge is
lacking. Fredendall et al. (2002, 51) calls the CED
process an exercise in structured brainstorming. The
logic of the CED is that one cannot act until the rela-
tionship between the cause and effect of a problem is
known. Consequently, the CED attempts to show related
causes so action can be taken.
Ishikawa (1982) outlines the following steps for
constructing a CED.
Step 1: Decide on the problem to improve or control.
Step 2: Write the problem on the right side and draw
an arrow from the left to the right side, as shown in
Figure 1(A).
Step 3: Write the main factors that may be causing
the problem by drawing major branch arrows to the
main arrow. Primary causal factors of the problem
www.asq.org 35
Doggett 9/22/05 1:53 PM Page 36
Root Cause Analysis: A Framework for Tool Selection
can be grouped into items with each forming a
major branch, as shown in Figure 1(B).
Step 4: For each major branch, detailed causal fac-
tors are written as twigs on each major branch of the
diagram. On the twigs, still more detailed causal
factors are written to make smaller twigs, as shown
in Figure 1(C).
Step 5: Ensure all the items that may be causing the
problem are included in the diagram.
Major cause category branches can be initially iden-
tified using the four Ms: material, methods, machines,
and manpower, or more correctly, the four Ps: parts
(raw materials), procedures, plant (equipment), and
people. Categories can also be tailored depending on the
problem (Moran, Talbot, and Benson 1990; Scholtes
1988; Sproull 2001). Sometimes measurement or envi-
ronment is the fifth category. Arcaro (1997) suggests
using no more than eight major categories.
There are various types of CEDs. The dispersion
CED develops groups of probable causes as the main
branches. Participants are asked to identify why disper-
sions (or variations) in the problem occur. The reasons
for the dispersions are then drawn as twigs on the
branches (Ishikawa 1982; Sproull 2001). The advan-
tage of this method is that breaking down causes into
more detail helps organize and relate the factors. The
disadvantage is that the final form is highly dependent
on the person or group constructing it, and small
causes of variation may be overlooked (Andersen and
Fagerhaug 2000).
The process classification CED lists all the
process steps on the main arrow. Factors that may
affect that particular process step are added as
branches or drawn as individual CEDs. This type of
diagram is like an assembly line with each process
step drawn on the main arrow with detailed branches
added. The advantage of this method is that it is easy
to understand because it follows the sequence of the
process. The disadvantage is that similar causes may
appear repeatedly, while causes due to interdependent
factors are difficult to illustrate (Andersen and
Fagerhaug 2000; Ishikawa 1982).
The cause enumeration CED simply lists all pro-
posed possible causes of the problem and organizes
36 QMJ VOL. 12, NO. 4/ 2005, ASQ
them according to their relationship to the problem
and each other. The advantage of this method is that
all proposed causes are listed and solutions are encour-
aged without confining thinking, with the resulting
diagram being quite complete. The disadvantage is
that it may be difficult to establish a direct relationship
between any given cause and the final effect (Andersen
and Fagerhaug 2000; Ishikawa 1982).
A thoroughly completed CED looks rather compli-
cated with many branches, twigs, and smaller twigs.
Conversely, too simple a diagram generally indicates
that knowledge of the process or problem is shallow
and requires further investigation (Ishikawa 1982).
Also, the CED may highlight knowledge gaps through
the lack of probable causes on a particular category
branch.
A drawback to using the CED is that there is no
specific mechanism for identifying a particular root
cause once complete. One technique is to look on the
diagram for causes that appear repeatedly within or
across major categories. Selecting a single root cause,
however, may prove difficult unless the characteristics
of the problem are well known or documented. As a
last resort, groups can select a root cause through
unstructured group consensus or a structured tech-
nique such as multivoting or nominal group technique
(Brassard and Ritter 1994).
Overall, the advantage of the CED is that it is easy to
use, it promotes structure while allowing some creativi-
ty, and it works best when the problem is well defined
and data driven (Scholtes 1988). The disadvantage of
the CED is that it is heavily dependent on detailed
knowledge of the problem and it only identifies possible
causes (Sproull 2001). Bhote (1988) criticizes the
CED as ineffective, saying it is a hit-and-miss process
that may take months or years to find root causes
because it tends to emphasize opinions and overlook
causal interactions.
Interrelationship Diagram (ID)
The ID, originally known as the relations diagram,
was developed by the Society of Quality Control
Technique Development in association with the Union
of Japanese Scientists and Engineers (JUSE) in 1976.
Doggett 9/22/05 1:53 PM Page 37
Root Cause Analysis: A Framework for Tool Selection
The relations diagram was part of a toolset known as
the seven new quality control (7 new QC) tools. It was
designed to clarify the intertwined causal relationships
of a complex problem in order to identify an appropri-
ate solution. The relations diagram evolved into a
problem-solving and decision-making method from
management indicator relational analysis, a method
for economic planning and engineering. Original
relations diagrams analyzed cause-and-effect relation-
ships using complex calculations for each factor
(Mizuno 1988).
In 1984, GOAL/QPC, an educational consulting
company, formed the Statistical Resource Committee to
research, review, and redesign its training materials for
statistical process control (SPC). The result of the com-
mittees work is a practitioners handbook, The
Memory Jogger, which describes the various SPC tools
for practitioners and front-line managers. These tools
are known as the seven quality control (7QC) tools and
include the CED. During the development of the hand-
book, the authors at GOAL/QPC became aware of the
seven new QC tools as proposed and published by
Mizuno. After translating a working version of
Mizunos book, which was not published in English
until 1988, the Statistical Resource Committee refined
Mizunos tools into another toolset called the seven
management and planning (7MP) tools. The commit-
tee developed the term 7MP to indicate that this was not
a new toolset to replace the old QC set of tools, but
rather supplement them and more accurately describe
their intended application (Brassard 1996). As an out-
come, GOAL/QPC published the Memory Jogger Plus+
in 1989, which features the 7MP tools and a variation
of Mizunos relations diagram called the interrelation-
ship digraph. A digraph is a combination of the words
diagram and graph (Moran, Talbot, and Benson
1990). Thus, the terms interrelationship digraph,
interrelationship diagram, and relations diagram are
generally used interchangeably.
The interrelationship diagram takes complex,
multivariable problems and explores and displays all of
the interrelated factors involved. It graphically shows
the logical (and often causal) relationships between
factors (Brassard 1996, 5). Andersen and Fagerhaug
(2000, 14, 19) state that the ID is a tool used to identify
logical relationships between different ideas or issues in
a complex or confusing situation and borders on
being a tool for cause-and-effect analysis. Brassard
and Ritter (1994) state that the ID allows groups to
identify, analyze, and classify the cause-and-effect rela-
tionships that exist among all critical issues so that key
factors can be part of an effective solution. The intent
of the ID is to encourage practitioners to think in mul-
tiple directions rather than linearly so that critical
issues can emerge naturally rather than follow person-
al agendas. The ID assists in systematically surfacing
basic assumptions and reasons for those assumptions.
In summary, the ID helps identify root causes.
The ID uses arrows to show cause-and-effect rela-
tionships among a number of potential problem fac-
tors. Short sentences or phrases expressing the factor
are enclosed in rectangles or ovals. Whether phrases or
sentences are used is a group decision, but authors rec-
ommend the use of at least a noun and a verb
(Brassard 1996; Brassard and Ritter 1994). Arrows
drawn between the factors represent a relationship. As a
rule, the arrow points from the cause to the effect or
from the means to the objective. The arrow, however,
may be reversed if it suits the purpose of the analysis
(Mizuno 1988).
The format of the ID is generally unrestricted with
several variants. The centrally converging ID places
the major problem in the center with closely related
factors arranged around it to indicate a close relation-
ship. The directionally intense ID places the problem
to one side of the diagram and arranges the factors
according to their cause-and-effect relationships on
the other side. The applications format ID can be
unrestricted, centrally converging, or directionally
intense, but adds additional structure based on factors
such as organizational configuration, processes, or
systems.
The ID may use either quantitative or qualitative
formats. In the qualitative format, the factors are sim-
ply connected to each other and the root cause is
identified based on intuitive understanding. In the
quantitative format, numeric identifiers are used to
determine the strength of relations between factors
and the root cause is identified based on the numeric
value (Andersen and Fagerhaug 2000).
www.asq.org 37
Doggett 9/22/05 1:53 PM Page 38

Root Cause Analysis: A Framework for Tool Selection

Figure 2 Example of an interrelationship diagram.

IN OUT
6 1 IN OUT
2 2
Scheduled
IN OUT appointments Emergency
0 1 appointments

Pay levels

IN OUT IN OUT
0 3 3 1
Equipment
Administrative
quality and
workload
availability

IN OUT
1 3 IN OUT
4 1
Support
functions Changes in
availability scheduled
appointments
Health
professional
availability

2005, ASQ
IN OUT
1 5

Mizuno (1988) recommends the following when
creating a relations diagram:
Step 1: Collect information from a variety of sources.
Step 2: Use concise phrases or sentences as opposed
to isolated words.
Step 3: Draw diagrams only after group consensus is
reached.
Step 4: Rewrite diagrams several times to identify
and separate critical items.
Step 5: Do not be distracted by intermediate factors
that do not directly influence the root causes.
Mizuno recommends asking why questions to sur-
face true cause-and-effect relationships and to slow
the process so participants can critically evaluate,
revise, examine, or discard factors.
Andersen and Fagerhaug (2000) write that the
first step for using an ID is to determine and label the
factors, then place them on an easel or whiteboard in
a circular shape and assess the relationship of each
factor on other factors using arrows. After all relation-
ships have been assessed, count the number of arrows
pointing into or out of each factor. A factor with more
out arrows than in arrows is a cause, while a fac-
tor with more in arrows than out arrows is an
effect. The causal factors form the starting point for
analysis. Figure 2 shows an example of an unrestrict-
ed quantitative interrelationship diagram.
A variant of the ID is the ID matrix, which places
all the factors on the first column and row of a
matrix. This format creates a more orderly display
and prevents the tool from becoming too chaotic
when there are many factors. The strength and direc-
tion of the relationships can be represented through
arrows, numbers, or other symbols placed in the cells
of the matrix. Brassard (1996) and Brassard and
Ritter (1994) argue that users become careless with

38 QMJ VOL. 12, NO. 4/ 2005, ASQ

Doggett 9/22/05 1:53 PM Page 39
Root Cause Analysis: A Framework for Tool Selection
large, complicated diagrams, so the ID matrix is a
good technique to force participants to pay attention
to each factor in a more systematic fashion.
A particular concern of the ID is that it does not
have a mechanism for evaluating the integrity of the
selected root cause. In using the quantitative or qual-
itative method, practitioners must be able to assess
the validity of their choices and the strength of the
factor relationships. Some users may simply count
the number of arrows and select a root cause without
thoroughly analyzing or testing their assumptions
about the problem.
Overall, the IDs strength is that it is a structured
approach that provides for the analysis of complex
relationships using a nonlinear approach. The disad-
vantage is that it may rely too heavily on the subjective
judgments about factor relationships and can become
quite complex or hard to read (Andersen and
Fagerhaug 2000).
Current Reality Tree (CRT)
Goldratt (1990, 3) promotes the idea that the factors
of problems are interdependent and result from a few
core (root) causes. Goldratt asserts, We grossly
underestimate the power of our intuition. Intuitively,
most people know how to solve problems, but are
unable to because they have no method of focusing
their intuition. Without a means to focus, people will
do the opposite of what they really believe and will
play a lot of games with numbers and words.
Goldratt expands on the idea of problem solving
through focused intuition in the book Its Not Luck
(Goldratt 1994), which introduces the CRT. The CRT
is one of five thinking process (TP) tools, a toolset
that Goldratt developed for implementing the theory
of constraints (TOC).
The CRT addresses problems by relating multiple
factors rather than isolated events. Its purpose is to help
practitioners find the links between symptomatic
factors, called undesirable effects (UDEs), of the core
problem. The CRT was designed to show the current
state of reality as it exists in a system. It reflects the
most probable chain of cause-and-effect factors that
contribute to a specific set of circumstances and creates
a basis for understanding complex systems (Dettmer
1997). Schragenheim (1998, 19-20) writes, The
current reality tree depicts the current state of an
organization with the objective of identifying a root
cause. Scheinkopf (1999, 144) states that the CRT
is used to pinpoint a core drivera common cause
for many effects. The CRT assumes that all systems
are subject to interdependencies among the factor
components. Therefore, related causes must be identi-
fied and isolated before they can be addressed.
Like the other tools, the CRT uses entities and
arrows to describe a system. Entities are statements
within some kind of geometric figure, usually a rec-
tangle with smooth or sharp corners. An entity is
expressed as a complete statement that conveys an
idea. An entity can be a cause, an effect, or both
(Dettmer 1997). Arrows in the CRT signify a suffi-
ciency relationship between the entities. Sufficiency
implies that the cause is, in fact, enough to create the
effect. Entities that do not meet the sufficiency crite-
ria are not connected. The relationship between two
entities is read as an if-then statement such as,
If [cause statement entity], then [effect statement
entity] (Dettmer 1997; Scheinkopf 1999).
In addition, the CRT uses a unique symbol, the oval
or ellipse, to show relationships between interdependent
causes. The literature distinguishes between interrela-
tionship and interdependency using sufficient cause
logic such that effects due to interdependency are
attributed to multiple and related causal factors.
Because the CRT is based on sufficiency, there may be
cases where one cause is not sufficient by itself to create
the proposed effect. Thus, the ellipse shows that multi-
ple causes are required for the produced effect. These
causes are contributive in nature such that they must
all be present for the effect to take place. If one of the
interdependent causes is removed, the effect will dis-
appear. Relationships that contain an ellipse are read
as, If [first contributing cause entity] and [second
contributing cause entity], then [effect entity].
Figure 3 shows an example of a CRT.
The CRT also allows for looping conventions that
either positively or negatively amplify the effect. In this
situation, an arrow is drawn from the last entity back
to one of the earlier causes. If the original core cause
www.asq.org 39
Doggett 9/22/05 1:53 PM Page 40
Root Cause Analysis: A Framework for Tool Selection
Figure 3 Example of a current reality tree.
Operators view standard practices
as a tool for inexperienced and
incompetent operators
Competent and experienced Operators want to be
operators do not need viewed as experienced
standard practices and competent
Some operations do not
have standard practices
creates a negative reinforcing loop, but can be
changed to a positive, the entire system will be rein-
forced with a desirable effect (Dettmer 1997). Although
constructed from the top, starting with effects, then
working down to causes, the CRT is read from bottom
to top using if-then statements. The arrows lead
from the cause upward (Gattiker and Boyd 1999).
The procedure for constructing a CRT was first
described by Goldratt (1994) via narrative format in
the book Its Not Luck. Cox and Spencer (1998) later
outline the paraphrased procedure:
1. List between five and 10 problems or UDEs related
to the situation.
2. Test each UDE for clarity and search for a causal
relationship between any two UDEs.
3. Determine which UDE is the cause and which is the
effect.
4. Test the relationship using categories of legitimate
reservation (CLRs). (These are rules for evaluating
assumptions and logic and are described later.)
40 QMJ VOL. 12, NO. 4/ 2005, ASQ
Operators do not use
standard practices
Company does not enforce
the use of standard practices
Some standard practices
are incorrect
Standard practices are
not updated regularly
The company does not have a
defined system for creating and
updating standard practices
2005, ASQ
Standardization of practices
is not a company value
5. Continue the process of connecting the UDEs using
if-then logic until all the UDEs are connected.
6. Sometimes the cause by itself may not seem to be
enough to create the effect. Additional dependent
causes can be shown using the and connector.
7. Logical relationships can be strengthened using
words like some, few, many, frequently, and
sometimes.
This process continues as entities are added down-
ward and chained together. At some point no other
causes can be established or connected to the tree. The
construction is complete when all UDEs are connected
to very few root causes, which do not have preceding
causal entities (Cox et al. 1998; Dettmer 1997). The
final step in the construction of the CRT is to review all
the connections and test the logic of the diagram.
Branches that do not connect to UDEs can be pruned
or separated for later analysis.
The assumptions and logic of the CRT are evaluated
using rules called CLRs. These rules ensure rigor in
Doggett 9/22/05 1:53 PM Page 41
Root Cause Analysis: A Framework for Tool Selection
the CRT process and are the criteria for verifying, vali-
dating, and agreeing upon the connections between
factors. They are also used to facilitate discussion,
communicate disagreement, reduce animosity, and
foster collaboration (Scheinkopf 1999). The CLRs
consist of six tests or proofs: clarity, entity existence,
causality existence, cause insufficiency, additional
cause, and predicted effect (Dettmer 1997).
Clarity, causality existence, and entity existence are
the first level of reservation and are used to clarify
meaning and question relationships or the existence of
entities. The second level of reservation includes cause
insufficiency, additional cause, and predicted effect.
They are secondary because they are used when ques-
tions remain after addressing first-level reservations.
Second-level reservations look for missing or additional
causes and additional or invalid effects (Dettmer 1997;
Scheinkopf 1999).
Variations are the use of the CRT to identify busi-
ness constraints as part of TOC or to persuade others to
take a particular course of action (Cox et al. 1998;
Goldratt 1990; Lepore and Cohen 1999; Smith 2000).
When used as a persuasion tool, it is known as the
communication CRT. When used to identify business
constraints, it becomes one of the five TP tools used in
the TOC process (Scheinkopf 1999).
A particular concern of the CRT is its complexity of
construction and rigorous logic system. Practitioners
may find the application of the CRT too difficult or
time consuming. Conversely, the strength of the CRT is
the rigor of the CLR mechanism that encourages
attention to detail, ongoing evaluation, and integrity
of output.
PREVIOUS COMPARISONS OF
THE TOOLS
Fredendall et al. (2002), in a comparison of the CED
with the CRT, declare that they use much of the same
causal logic and can be used in tandem. For example,
a group may use the CED to brainstorm possible causes
and then use the CED output to develop a list of UDEs
for the CRT. There are, however, some critical differ-
ences between the two approaches.
First, the physical layout of the tools is different.
The CED is horizontal and reads from left to right,
while the CRT is vertical and reads from bottom to top.
Second, the CED does not easily show systematic causes
of an effect, while the CRT shows if-then logic more
precisely. Third, practitioners may find the strict appli-
cation of the CRT logic intimidating and resent having
to phrase their suggestions or objections as CLRs.
Consequently, most people view the CED as easier
because it requires less training and is quicker to con-
struct. Fourth, the CED does not quickly identify the
root cause of the problem, while the CRT is structured
so that it visually points to it, which then leads more
precisely to finding a potential permanent solution
(Fredendall et al. 2002).
Pasquarella, Mitchell, and Suerken (1997) present
a detailed comparison of the tools in a three-part pro-
ceedings article, with each author writing a section.
Suerken does not compare the tools, but recommends
using the TP tools, including the CRT, in educational
settings. Pasquarellas section compares the TP tools to
10 quality control tools (adding three more tools to the
7QC tools), including the CED. Pasquarella also com-
pares the TP tools to the 7MP tools, including the ID.
In comparing both sets of tools to the TP tools,
Pasquarella comes to three conclusions. First, organi-
zational managers will choose simple methods when
confronted with too many tools or if they perceive a
tool as too complex. Thus, most managers will choose
the CED because it fits their perception of a simple
analysis tool. Second, simple methods are heavily
influenced by the emotions of the people using them.
Conversely, complicated methods require a degree of
expertise and facilitation. Therefore, managers will
again choose the CED despite its subjective nature
because they are reluctant to assign groups complex
methods. Third, most tools do not address systemwide
problems unless they can be integrated and rigorously
applied. In other words, most tools cannot be used in
isolation to solve larger systemic problems.
Consequently, organization managers tend to use
simple tools that do not solve systematic problems.
Pasquarella claims the TP tools superior for the
following reasons:
www.asq.org 41
Doggett 9/22/05 1:53 PM Page 42
Root Cause Analysis: A Framework for Tool Selection
1. They are logical, simple, and there are less of them
to consider.
2. The TP tools capitalize on intuition and emotion
without skewing the process because the CLRs force
rigor into the process.
3. Each TP tool is clearly identified for a specific func-
tion so it can be used as a stand-alone application
as well as collectively for systematic problems. As a
result, Pasquarella declares that the TP tools (and
the CRT) produce the best results because they are
more robust, powerful, and intuitive than the
other tools.
Mitchells section reports the results of a qualitative
study that measured the effectiveness of the CED, the ID
matrix, and the CRT. Mitchell asked students from an
advanced quality management course to find the root
cause of an airline transport accident. The students
applied each of the three root cause analysis tools and
then drew comparisons.
Mitchells students found that the CRT pinpointed
a root cause of the airline accident while the CED did
not. Mitchell does not indicate whether the students
found a root cause using the ID matrix, but he states
that the matrix was a good tool for keeping the group
organized and focused. Mitchells students also
reported that the CRT was the only tool that displayed
interdependencies between causes. While the ID
matrix showed interrelationships, it did not show
whether the effect resulted from multiple related
causes. The CRT was the only tool to show both inter-
relationships and intermediate factors. Both the CED
and the CRT were effective in grouping cause cate-
gories. Mitchell reports that the CRT created more
discussion than the CED, but did not compare the ID
matrix. All three tools were deemed effective for
focusing problem-solving activity.
In terms of the process, Mitchells students found
the CED easiest and least time consuming, followed by
the CRT and ID matrix. In this study, the ID matrix
required extra process time to clarify and correct
incomplete relationships after initial construction.
Mitchells students rated the CRT highest for readability
because the root cause was easy to locate at the bottom
of the diagram. The ID matrix was rated second for
42 QMJ VOL. 12, NO. 4/ 2005, ASQ
readability, as it was easier to read at a glance, and the
CED was most the difficult to read.
Mitchells students concluded that the CRT was the
best of the three tools because it was able to pinpoint
root causes while identifying causal interdependencies.
The common weakness of the CED and ID was their
inability to identify causal interdependencies. Mitchell
offers the opinion that a clear understanding of causal
interdependency is critical to successful problem-solving
efforts. Without this understanding, overlooked negative
effects will creep back into a system and create recurrent
problems that will eventually need attention.
Using a repeated measures design with several sec-
tions of students from team building and leadership
courses, Doggett (2004) found statistically significant
differences between the tools with regard to perceptions
of usability (F (1.881, 74) = 9.156, p < .001) that was
driven primarily by ease or difficulty of use. Large effect
sizes (1.15 and 1.18) between the CRT and the other
tools indicated that the CRT was perceived as more
difficult. In terms of identifying cause categories, the
CED was perceived better than either the ID or CRT
(F (2, 74) = 7.839, p = .001). None of the students,
however, perceived any differences between the tools
with regard to finding root causes, identifying factor
relationships, or developing group discussion and
contribution. In terms of the process, the CRT was the
most time consuming, with the ID and CED taking
the same amount of time on average.
Of greater interest in Doggetts study was an appar-
ent incongruence between the statistical perceptions of
participants and the quality of the tool outputs. While
participants perceived few differences between the tools,
the characteristics of the tool outputs varied greatly.
The technical accuracy of both the CED and the ID
were high, whereas the technical accuracy of the CRT
was mixed. Students using the CED were seldom able to
identify a specific root cause, however, the students
using the ID found root causes more often. Because the
students using the CED could not identify specific root
causes, the integrity and reasonableness of their selec-
tions also suffered. While the ID groups found a root
cause most of the time, the integrity and reasonable-
ness of their root causes was mixed. In contrast, CRT
groups identified a root cause most of the time with
Doggett 9/22/05 1:53 PM Page 43

Root Cause Analysis: A Framework for Tool Selection

high integrity more than half the time. In addition, the Table 1 Head-to-head comparison of root cause
CRT groups were able to do this using fewer factors and analysis tools.
relationships than the other tools.
Performance criteria CED ID CRT
Doggett postulates that the incongruence between
perceptions and actual performance is due to the nature Ability to find a specific root cause No Yes Yes
of group dynamics that tends to avoid creating tension. Ability to find reasonable root cause No Mixed Yes
Because the students were involved in the complexity of
Ability to show systematic causes No No Yes
building the CRT, they did not take the time to assess or of effect
reflect on the meaning of their outputs. Their reflection
was impaired by the emotionally laden group process. Shows causal interdependency No No Yes

Thus, students perceived the tension generated by the Identifies factor relationships No Yes Yes
CRT as an added degree of difficulty. Although the
Shows intermediate factors No No Yes
majority of the CRT groups were uncomfortable during
the process, the quality of their outputs was better. Identifies cause categories Yes No ?

Stimulates dialogue and discussion ? ? Yes

SUMMARY OF THE LITERATURE Focuses activities Yes Yes Yes

The literature indicates that the CED is an easy-to-use Has mechanism for testing logic No No Yes
tool for developing and classifying root cause cate- Construction process time Low Low High
gories. It assumes the existence of enough knowledge
Construction accuracy required High Medium Low
to be able to isolate and identify probable root causes,
but the identified causes may not be specific or Extent of subjective influence on High High Low
reasonable. The CED has the potential to highlight output

information that is lacking or inadequate through the Amount of problem knowledge High ? ?
lack of identified causes in certain categories; however, required

it does not identify relationships between factors, has Ease of use High High Low
no formal mechanism for selecting and evaluating root
Overall readability Low Low High

causes, and may be influenced by group bias.
The literature indicates that the ID is an easy-to-use
tool to help clarify intertwined relationships between
multiple factors, although the factors may not be
causal. The ID is used to identify, analyze, and classify
possible relationships among critical issues using a
nonlinear structured method. Authors view the ID as a
borderline tool for cause-and-effect analysis because of
its mixed performance in identifying root causes. The
ID does not have a mechanism for evaluating the
integrity of the output, and may rely too heavily on
subjective judgments of factor relationships.
The literature indicates that the CRT is a complex
tool for pinpointing root causes and identifying causal
interdependencies. The CRT builds chains of cause and
effect, starting with effects, to guide the verbalization of
intuition in a logical fashion leading to the identifica-
tion of a core problem. Khaimovich (1999, 53) writes,
2005, ASQ
Number of factors to analyze Many ? Few
relative to the problem
Experts (tool practitioners) rarely look for root causes
moving from symptoms backwards along possible
causal links. In this respect, the CRT is unique. Of the
three root cause tools, the CRT is the only method that
has a mechanism for testing logic. Groups may find
the logic and construction rules of the CRT intimidat-
ing, difficult, and time consuming. While it is not clear
that all of the tools stimulate dialogue and discussion,
the CRT provides opportunities for groups to dialogue
using the CLRs.
A synthesis of the literature reviewed in this article
is shown in Table 1. If the reviewed literature does not
specifically address a performance criterion for the
specific tool, it is not indicated.

www.asq.org 43
Doggett 9/22/05 1:53 PM Page 44
Root Cause Analysis: A Framework for Tool Selection
CONCLUSION
Most of the literature describes the three tools inde-
pendently. Only three studies compare the CED, ID,
and CRT to each other. Two of the studies are qualita-
tive and one study is mixed. Problem solvers and
decision makers continue to have little data regard-
ing the actual effectiveness of root cause analysis
tools. Thus, it appears that there is an opportunity to
gain a better understanding the ability of these tools
to find actual root causes the most important
characteristic of a root cause analysis tool. There are
also the relational and causal factors that exist
around or close to the problem. If managers use tools
that find causal relationships and categories close to
where the problem resides, they can focus improve-
ment efforts more precisely and accurately in areas of
greatest potential.
Alternatively, root cause analysis tools must also
have the characteristics to promote collaboration,
stimulate discussion, be readable or understandable,
and have mechanisms for evaluating integrity. The
influence of group dynamics on process outcomes is
a common theme in research but beyond the scope of
this article. Self-motivated groups can probably over-
come many root cause analysis tool limitations.
Conversely, a dysfunctional group is probably not
capable of producing good results using even the best
root cause analysis tool. Teams that use dialogue and
discussion effectively within a supportive context
might overcome the restrictions of a mediocre tool,
but even the best analytical tool cannot turn a
mediocre team into a great problem-solving group.
The limitation of this type of research is the inability
to isolate aptitude-treatment interactions. If man-
agers use tools that effectively focus effort on finding
root causes rather than conflicting personalities, they
unleash the capability of the organization to learn
and address systemwide issues.
The implications for management are that effec-
tive problem solving requires the identification of
specific and reasonable root causes. Several methods
exist for identifying root causes, but their effective-
ness is dependant on the rigorous application of the
group and the integrity of the selected root cause.
44 QMJ VOL. 12, NO. 4/ 2005, ASQ
If the selected root cause is trustworthy, it produces a
clear managerial decision for an action. Each analy-
sis tool has distinguishing characteristics that can
potentially affect group output. Therefore, reliable
decision making requires that managers have a
working knowledge of root cause analysis tools, their
processes, and their likely outcomes.
The complexities of modern business require
approaches that are more sophisticated. A popular
view is that if enough minds are put to the task, an
answer to the problem will be found. Bhote (1988)
criticizes unstructured processes because they put too
much emphasis on opinions, take too long, and dont
produce lasting results. Leaders need to establish
standards and policies for problem-solving training,
and group facilitation and practice using structured
root cause analysis tools. The alternative is to contin-
ue to assume that existing efforts will somehow
produce different results. Assuming that groups can
work together on a problem without a tool, standard,
and method for critical evaluation is a policy doomed
to fail.
REFERENCES
Andersen, B., and T. Fagerhaug. 2000. Root cause analysis:
Simplified tools and techniques. Milwaukee: ASQ Quality Press.
Arcaro, J. S. 1997. TQM facilitators guide. Boca Raton, Fla.:
St. Lucie Press.
Bhote, K. R. 1988. World class quality: Design of experiments
made easier, more cost effective than SPC. New York: AMA.
Brassard, M., and D. Ritter. 1994. The memory jogger II: A pocket
guide of tools for continuous improvement and effective planning.
Salem, N.H.: GOAL/QPC.
Brassard, M. 1996. The memory jogger plus+: Featuring the seven
management and planning tools. Salem, N.H.: GOAL/QPC.
Cox, J. F. III, R. H. Draman, L. H. Boyd, and M. S. Spencer.
1998. A cause and effect approach to analyzing performance
measures: Part 2 internal plant operations. Production and
Inventory Management Journal, 39, no. 4:25-33.
Cox, J. F. III, and M. S. Spencer. 1998. The constraints management
handbook. Boca Raton, Fla.: St. Lucie Press.
Dettmer, H. W. 1997. Goldratts theory of constraints. Milwaukee:
ASQ Quality Press.
Dew, J. R. 1991. In search of the root cause. Quality Progress 24,
no. 3:97-107.
Doggett 9/22/05 1:53 PM Page 45
Root Cause Analysis: A Framework for Tool Selection
Doggett, A. M. 2004. A statistical comparison of three root
cause analysis tools. Journal of Industrial Technology 20, no. 2.
Fredendall, L. D., J. W. Patterson, C. Lenhartz, and B. C. Mitchell.
2002. What should be changed? Quality Progress 35, no. 1:50-59.
Gattiker, T. F., and L. H. Boyd. 1999. A cause-and-effect
approach to analyzing continuous improvement at an electronics
manufacturing facility. Production and Inventory Management
Journal 40 no. 2:26-31.
Goldratt, E. M. 1990. What is this thing called theory of con-
straints and how should it be implemented? New York: North
River Press.
Goldratt, E. M. 1994. Its not luck. Great Barrington, Mass.:
North River Press.
Ishikawa, K. 1982. Guide to quality control, second edition.
Tokyo: Asian Productivity Organization.
Khaimovich, L. 1999. Toward a truly dynamic theory of problem-
solving group effectiveness: Cognitive and emotional processes
during the root cause analysis performed by a business process
re-engineering team. Ph.D. diss., University of Pittsburgh.
Abstract in Dissertation Abstracts International 60:04B: 1915.
Lepore, D., and O. Cohen. 1999. Deming and Goldratt: The theory
of constraints and the system of profound knowledge. Great
Barrington, Mass.: North River Press.
Mizuno, S., ed. 1988. Management for quality improvement: The
seven new QC tools. Cambridge: Productivity Press.
Moran, J. W., R. P. Talbot, and R. M. Benson. 1990. A guide to
graphical problem-solving processes. Milwaukee: ASQ Quality Press.
Pasquarella, M., B. Mitchell, and K. Suerken. 1997. A compari-
son on thinking processes and total quality management tools.
1997 APICS constraints management proceedings: Make common
sense a common practice. Falls Church, Va.: APICS.
Scheinkopf, L. J. 1999. Thinking for a change: Putting the TOC
thinking processes to use. Boca Raton, Fla.: St. Lucie Press.
Scholtes, P. 1988. The team handbook: How to use teams to
improve quality. Madison, Wis.: Joiner.
Schragenheim, E. 1998. Management dilemmas: The theory of
constraints approach to problem identification and solutions.
Boca Raton, Fla.: St. Lucie Press.
Smith, D. 2000. The measurement nightmare: How the theory of
constraints can resolve conflicting strategies, policies, and meas-
ures. Boca Raton, Fla.: St. Lucie Press.
Sproull, B. 2001. Process problem solving: A guide for mainte-
nance and operations teams. Portland: Productivity Press.
Wilson, P. F., L. D. Dell, and G. F. Anderson. 1993. Root cause
analysis: A tool for total quality management. Milwaukee: ASQ
Quality Press.
BIOGRAPHY
Mark Doggett is the chair of the Department of Industrial
Technology at Humboldt State University. He is currently working
to revitalize the study of technology on his campus and improve
the technological literacy of the local community. His interests are
quality management practices, lean manufacturing, theory of
constraints, and systems thinking. He has also performed
research in various decision-making and problem-solving strate-
gies used by students, managers, and policy makers. His areas of
expertise include leadership, process management, and manu-
facturing technology with more than 20 years of experience in
business and industr y. Doggett received his doctorate at
Colorado State University in interdisciplinary studies and holds
bachelors and masters degrees in Industrial Technology. He can
be reached by e-mail at Mark.Doggett@humboldt.edu.
www.asq.org 45